> But a growing number of scientists, environmentalists and African community leaders have warned that the new law could accelerate the loss of wildlife, pointing to the contributions of regulated trophy hunting to recovering black and white rhino populations in Namibia and South Africa, and the snow leopard in Tajikistan.
> During a visit to London last week, Maxi Pia Louis, a Namibian representative for communities in nine southern African countries, met with Goldsmith and other UK politicians to voice her opposition to the ban in its current form, insisting that it would remove financial incentives to protect wildlife without providing an alternative.
> “Africans are not being consulted, especially in southern African where we have the majority of wildlife. If there is no incentive to conserve wildlife, we will see a lot of land lost to agriculture. You can imagine what will happen to lions and elephants that need big ranges,” said Pia Louis, who is also meeting with the European parliament and other governments in her visit with colleagues.
So not neo-colonialism at all, but locals complaining that if the market for hunting trophies disappears then so too does the market for protecting the wildlife and (on an unrelated note) the land would be lost to agriculture which would damage the wildlife once again.
Expecting ‘us’ to sort out both ‘our’ problems *and* ‘theirs’. Ironically, giving them the freedom to police themselves and determine what to do with their own land and wildlife is neo-colonialism now.
A really nice example of damned if you do damned if you don’t. “Colonialism” is really the new word to shut anyone down who says something you don’t like huh.
I have a difficulty understanding the logic of banning the import of pieces made of ivory, rhinoceros horn, skins of endangered animals like tigers and so forth that are above a certain age. The animal is already dead, but if the trophies are destroyed then the death was a complete waste. Fresh ivory is a different story but there is no reason to confiscate or destroy a wall-mount made from an animal that was killed when Victoria was Queen, or a piano built in the 1950s.
A nice solution might be to put a very heavy excise duty on these pieces and use the proceeds to arm and train anti-poaching operations like the rangers of the Kenyan Wildlife Service.
George Monbiot had a really good thread on the subject:
>I’ve been taking a lot of heat over the past week, stoked by certain Twitter accounts, on the grounds that I “support trophy hunting”. I don’t. I hate it. But I have been seeking to engage with complexities which some people refuse to acknowledge. Thread/
>
>These complexities affect some places, in some circumstances. They are not universal, but they are important. In these cases, trophy hunting currently helps to protect some crucial wildlife habitats and allows populations of highly threatened species to recover.
>
>To give a few of many examples, trophy hunting has contributed to the remarkable rise in the number of both white and black rhinos in Namibia and South Africa, to the recovery of the Selous Reserve in Tanzania and to the protection of polar bears by Inuit communities in Nunavut.
>
>I would very much like this conservation to happen by other means. I’m revolted by the sight of hunters posing with the magnificent animals they have killed. But despite decades of promises by rich nations to fund conservation properly in poor ones, the money never materialises.
>
>While local communities wait and wait for this promised money to arrive, the revenue from trophy hunting, in certain places and cases, fills the gap as an incentive for conservation.
>
>If it were suddenly stopped, as many demand, the result, in some of these cases, would be the large-scale conversion of land from wildlife habitat to agriculture, and the loss of crucial populations of large, threatened animals.
>
>So why, many people ask, can’t this be done by other means? For example, through photographic tourism? Well, tourists tend to cluster in certain hotspots, often those with open habitats (where animals can easily be seen), easy access, no tsetse flies etc.
>
>Large areas of very important habitat, but of the kind few tourists are drawn to, and where other forms of revenue are not sufficient, are currently being funded by the “sport” we all hate.
>
>Do we expect people much poorer than ourselves to live alongside large and dangerous animals, and refrain from converting their land to farming, simply for the love of it? If so, why are we not prepared to do so ourselves?
>
>After all, elephants, rhinos, lions, hyaenas and hippos once lived throughout Europe, including the UK, during the last interglacial. My proposal that we reinstate them hasn’t exactly been met with enthusiasm. Why do we expect other people, without help or incentive, to do so?
>
>So yes, by all means, let’s stop this grotesque business. It revolts me as much as it revolts you. But only once other incentives have been locked into place. Otherwise, far from preventing the mass killing of the wildlife we love, we will accelerate it.
>
>And in the meantime, we help no one by abusing and threatening those who seek to discuss these uncomfortable realities. We should be able to navigate difficult issues without being pilloried. Exploring complex and troubling issues is what I do. It is not a sin. Thank you.
I’d rather these big game hunters got all put in an enclosure together and hunted themselves
No, what you’re doing, demanding someone else’s country allow the importation of contraband, is colonialism.
Ever heard of the opium wars?
I agree that animal trophy hunting should be banned but hear me out what about human trophy hunting.
Before people start hitting report i’m talking about the same kind of hunt that sport hunts have done were they get a runner towing a piece of cloth covered in a scent and the runner has to evade for as long as possible.
Do something like that but offer actual prizes for both hunters and runners.
Instead of been a bloodsport it becomes a bonding competition without the blood been split.
Sounds closer to the opposite of colonialism to me.
8 comments
> But a growing number of scientists, environmentalists and African community leaders have warned that the new law could accelerate the loss of wildlife, pointing to the contributions of regulated trophy hunting to recovering black and white rhino populations in Namibia and South Africa, and the snow leopard in Tajikistan.
> During a visit to London last week, Maxi Pia Louis, a Namibian representative for communities in nine southern African countries, met with Goldsmith and other UK politicians to voice her opposition to the ban in its current form, insisting that it would remove financial incentives to protect wildlife without providing an alternative.
> “Africans are not being consulted, especially in southern African where we have the majority of wildlife. If there is no incentive to conserve wildlife, we will see a lot of land lost to agriculture. You can imagine what will happen to lions and elephants that need big ranges,” said Pia Louis, who is also meeting with the European parliament and other governments in her visit with colleagues.
So not neo-colonialism at all, but locals complaining that if the market for hunting trophies disappears then so too does the market for protecting the wildlife and (on an unrelated note) the land would be lost to agriculture which would damage the wildlife once again.
Expecting ‘us’ to sort out both ‘our’ problems *and* ‘theirs’. Ironically, giving them the freedom to police themselves and determine what to do with their own land and wildlife is neo-colonialism now.
A really nice example of damned if you do damned if you don’t. “Colonialism” is really the new word to shut anyone down who says something you don’t like huh.
I have a difficulty understanding the logic of banning the import of pieces made of ivory, rhinoceros horn, skins of endangered animals like tigers and so forth that are above a certain age. The animal is already dead, but if the trophies are destroyed then the death was a complete waste. Fresh ivory is a different story but there is no reason to confiscate or destroy a wall-mount made from an animal that was killed when Victoria was Queen, or a piano built in the 1950s.
A nice solution might be to put a very heavy excise duty on these pieces and use the proceeds to arm and train anti-poaching operations like the rangers of the Kenyan Wildlife Service.
George Monbiot had a really good thread on the subject:
[https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1486274032945315840](https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1486274032945315840)
>I’ve been taking a lot of heat over the past week, stoked by certain Twitter accounts, on the grounds that I “support trophy hunting”. I don’t. I hate it. But I have been seeking to engage with complexities which some people refuse to acknowledge. Thread/
>
>These complexities affect some places, in some circumstances. They are not universal, but they are important. In these cases, trophy hunting currently helps to protect some crucial wildlife habitats and allows populations of highly threatened species to recover.
>
>To give a few of many examples, trophy hunting has contributed to the remarkable rise in the number of both white and black rhinos in Namibia and South Africa, to the recovery of the Selous Reserve in Tanzania and to the protection of polar bears by Inuit communities in Nunavut.
>
>I would very much like this conservation to happen by other means. I’m revolted by the sight of hunters posing with the magnificent animals they have killed. But despite decades of promises by rich nations to fund conservation properly in poor ones, the money never materialises.
>
>While local communities wait and wait for this promised money to arrive, the revenue from trophy hunting, in certain places and cases, fills the gap as an incentive for conservation.
>
>If it were suddenly stopped, as many demand, the result, in some of these cases, would be the large-scale conversion of land from wildlife habitat to agriculture, and the loss of crucial populations of large, threatened animals.
>
>So why, many people ask, can’t this be done by other means? For example, through photographic tourism? Well, tourists tend to cluster in certain hotspots, often those with open habitats (where animals can easily be seen), easy access, no tsetse flies etc.
>
>Large areas of very important habitat, but of the kind few tourists are drawn to, and where other forms of revenue are not sufficient, are currently being funded by the “sport” we all hate.
>
>Do we expect people much poorer than ourselves to live alongside large and dangerous animals, and refrain from converting their land to farming, simply for the love of it? If so, why are we not prepared to do so ourselves?
>
>After all, elephants, rhinos, lions, hyaenas and hippos once lived throughout Europe, including the UK, during the last interglacial. My proposal that we reinstate them hasn’t exactly been met with enthusiasm. Why do we expect other people, without help or incentive, to do so?
>
>So yes, by all means, let’s stop this grotesque business. It revolts me as much as it revolts you. But only once other incentives have been locked into place. Otherwise, far from preventing the mass killing of the wildlife we love, we will accelerate it.
>
>And in the meantime, we help no one by abusing and threatening those who seek to discuss these uncomfortable realities. We should be able to navigate difficult issues without being pilloried. Exploring complex and troubling issues is what I do. It is not a sin. Thank you.
I’d rather these big game hunters got all put in an enclosure together and hunted themselves
No, what you’re doing, demanding someone else’s country allow the importation of contraband, is colonialism.
Ever heard of the opium wars?
I agree that animal trophy hunting should be banned but hear me out what about human trophy hunting.
Before people start hitting report i’m talking about the same kind of hunt that sport hunts have done were they get a runner towing a piece of cloth covered in a scent and the runner has to evade for as long as possible.
Do something like that but offer actual prizes for both hunters and runners.
Instead of been a bloodsport it becomes a bonding competition without the blood been split.
Sounds closer to the opposite of colonialism to me.